· Private foundation
The Fiona and Rick True Charitable Trust (Fka the Tony McLellan Charitable Trust)
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2023–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k11 grants · $37k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $55k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $274k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ACKERMAN INSTITUTE FOR THE FAMILY | $150,000 |
| AFRICAN COMMUNITY & CONSERVATION FOUNDATION | $73,653 |
| UNCF | $50,000 |
| MIGRANT AND IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY ACTION PROJECT (MICA) | $20,000 |
| PENCIL INC | $15,000 |
| MONHEGAN MUSEUM | $10,000 |
| CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY | $10,000 |
| ELEVATED ACCESS | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| ACLU FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| WELLSPRING HEALTH ACCESS | $5,000 |
| PUBLIC CITIZEN | $5,000 |
| GUILFORD COLLEGE | $5,000 |
| BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH | $2,000 |
| THE WESTERLIES | $2,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY23–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 76% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +28% since the first grant, against +18% for the ones you funded once.
6 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 12 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 21% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $289k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- CFCENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY INC2× · 2023–2024 · $39k · revenue +4%
- PCPUBLIC CITIZEN INC2× · 2023–2024 · $10k · revenue +47%
Elevated Access Inc2× · 2023–2024 · $10k · revenue +47%
Funded once
- TCTHE CHRISTOPHER & DANA REEVE FOUNDATIONone grant, 2023 · $100k
- MAMIGRANT AND IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY ACTION PROJECTone grant, 2023 · $10k
- WSWELL SPRING HEALTH ACCESSone grant, 2023 · $10k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The institute is a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the united states and globally.
We generate ideas, produce evidence, and design solutions to improve the lives of underserved populations around the world. we take a multidisciplinary, intergenerational, life-cycle approach that contributes to (see schedule o)four global…
Between 2024 and 2025, the committee on freedom of the press and information, together with its subcommittees on impunity and chapultepecsalta, participated in approximately nine activities. these included a panel discussion entitled…
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
In recognition of the fundamental principles of the universal declaration of human rights, international bridges to justice (ibj) is dedicated to protecting the basic legal rights of ordinary citizens in developing countries. specifically,…
To advance human rights and social justice in the americas.
The international institute on race, equality and human rights contributes to the promotion and defense of human rights, through training, technical assistance, advocacy, and strategic litigation conducted at the regional and international…
Civicus is a global alliance of civil society organisations and activists dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society throughout the world.
AJC's mission is to enhance the wellbeing of the Jewish people and Israel, and to advance human rights and democratic values in the United States and around the world. In pursuit of this mission, AJC advances democratic principles, fights…
Parliamentarians for global action (pga) is a non-partisan ngo network of legislators from all regions of the world acting in their individual capacity to advocate for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law; peace and human security;…
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
The center for justice and accountability (cja) is an international human rights organization dedicated to deterring torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other severe human rights abuses around the world through litigation,…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Physicians for Human Rights Inc and the most unlike its peers is Elevated Access Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 32 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 10% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
22 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 22 of the 33 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds UNITED NEGRO COLLEGE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds ACKERMAN INSTITUTE FOR THE FAMILY ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN COMMUNITY AND CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY INC ↗
- Who funds PENCIL INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN JEWISH WORLD SERVICE INC ↗
- Who funds GUILFORD COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC CITIZEN INC ↗
- Who funds PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INC ↗
- Who funds Elevated Access Inc ↗
- Who funds SILK ROAD PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS INC ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC ↗
- Who funds JACQUES PEPIN FOUNDATION THE ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds CIRCLE OF HOPE HEALTH CARE SVCS INC ↗
- Who funds WESTERLIES MUSIC INC ↗
- Who funds CHOATE ROSEMARY HALL FOUNDATION INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · American Endowment Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization The Fiona and Rick True Charitable Trust (Fka the Tony McLellan Charitable Trust) funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Center for Medicare Advocacy Inc — 63% of income from government
- Silk Road Project Inc — 4% of income from government
- Choate Rosemary Hall Foundation Incorporated — 0% of income from government
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.